Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Addihockey10

Add links
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a permissions request that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Addihockey10

[change source]
Addihockey10 (talk · contribs)
RfA of Addihockey10
global contribs · pie chart · edit count · list user · blocklog ·contribs · deleted
Last comment by: ShakespeareFan00.

End date: 23:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)



I am nominating Addihockey10 (talk · contribs) for adminship. He's been around simplewiki since December of 2010 and has done just over 500 edits to the project. I know that this is less than the usual number of edits for a new admin, but I think it's important to decide whether or not a candidate knows what to do as an admin and what not to do; Addihockey10 knows these. He works globally as well, often needing an admin to act for him on another project. To me, this means that he knows how to be an administrator and I think we should consider him for admin here. I've never known him to do something bad on purpose and have only seen him make the same mistakes we've all made. Thanks for your attention. fr33kman 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate's acceptance: I humbly accept --Addihockey10 e-mail 23:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[change source]
  1. Per nom fr33kman 23:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[change source]
  1. Oppose Less than 100 edits a month...and only 500 in total. Nowhere near the activity needed for an admin and not really enough to show the knowledge of the community necessary to be an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Recent edits like this also hurt when I consider the needed maturity level for an admin. -DJSasso (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per above, all for AGF but just too little activity for me to have built up trust, particularly when taken in hand with the fact that the user has expressed several times in the past that he doesn't agree with the aims of the project and nor understands what the point of it is. Sorry, I can't trust someone with the tools if that's the case and this certainly stinks of hat collection in that respect. Goblin 23:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Fr33kman![reply]
  3. Oppose mainly per Bluegoblin7's concerns. I have had experience with this user on other projects and on IRC, and I don't believe that he has the necessary maturity and experience on simple to become an administrator, especially given the apparent irony of this request. Logan (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Irony? What like having 7 edits in two years? ;) fr33kman 23:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how having 7 edits in two years is ironic. The irony that I mentioned is based upon Bluegoblin7's statement that "the user has expressed several times in the past that he doesn't agree with the aims of the project" and yet is requesting adminship on that same project. Logan (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The irony, is in a person who doesn't really like the candidate showing up within minutes of him having an RFA on a project that you have no interest in. Sorry, but I'm not buying what you're selling Logan. He's made a commitment at least 78x what you have on this project. I wonder how you even knew this RFA was happening? ;) fr33kman 00:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I still fail to see irony there, but, as for your second question, I monitor the RfAs on the English Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia on IRC, and, when I saw this RfA, I felt the need to express my opinion due to this candidate's clear unsuitability for adminship. Logan Talk Contributions 00:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Logan, since you said above that I don't have the necessary maturity to be admin, could you kindly provide some diffs that show immaturity? --Addihockey10 e-mail 00:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That wasn't terribly difficult. Logan Talk Contributions 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Testing the undo feature on your own userpage making a sarcastic comment directed at yourself... you'll have to do better than that :-) --Addihockey10 e-mail 00:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I highly doubt that explanation is true, considering you have over 10,000 edits on en.wiki that include using the undo feature multiple times. Logan Talk Contributions 00:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it was to see if undoing a revision before the current revision did something weird; but there wasn't one to undo to; so I made another one which was that sarcastic remark. --Addihockey10 e-mail 00:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I can understand how you got here then, but it's still a drive-by fr33kman 00:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In one point in time when I wasn't very familiar with the project I did say on "IRC" that it was pointless; but then PeterSymonds explained to me what the project was for and I have not thought of the project being pointless since. --Addihockey10 e-mail 23:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I don't personally buy that as an explanation for your views, considering at least three of us had already explained what the project was for. You continued to not get it or understand it etc, and, for me, that's an instant no-no for adminship. Goblin 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]
  4. Regretfully oppose. Positive work being done so far, but still too soon/too little experience for me to support. Either way (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak Oppose - Nothing terribly wrong but just not now. Not yet. In the future possibly. Try again in a wee while. More of the same before trying again. Basically what I'm saying is if you apply again in the future I'd probably swing my vote. Ydennek (talk) 12:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Too less editing experience here. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No. Per other users above - TBloemink (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Oppose per Goblin. I have this feeling that the user is just collecting flags, and I see a lack of activity and commitment too. — Kudu ~I/O~ 21:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[change source]

Many users here say that I need more experience before I'm ready to get the mop; is this quality-wise of edits or quantity-wise? Because I believe that quality is much more important then quality. --Addihockey10 e-mail 22:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its really a combination of both. Most people when they say not enough edits I believe are saying they haven't seen enough of your edits to judge you. Personally with 500 edits even if they are quality, anyone can fake good edits for 500 edits. (Not saying you are) But the longer you are around and the more edits you do, especially ones in community discussion and dealing with controversial situations the more likely your true colours come through and you give a better basis to make a judgement on. Personally (and I know some people disagree) but if you have to ask for a nom, you aren't ready to be an admin is generally the standard a lot of people go by. Good future admins wait for people to tell them they are ready. Many reasons for this, one of which is that they are already likely to be supported but also because it shows someone isn't looking for perceived power or a prize or whatever. When I see someone with 500 edits looking for the mop I almost always know they aren't ready. Personally I like to see admins around the community for closing in on a year and be involved in lots of admin areas and lots of admin discussion and have a significant activity level with which to judge on. Keep doing what you are doing is my advice and then people will ask you if you want the mop instead of you having to ask fr33kman to nominate you. Don't stress about becoming an admin, people who have the goal of being an admin rarely should be. -DJSasso (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is needed now to make another "per X" vote here. I already told you on IRC what I think (enwiki attribution stuff I just remember) why I would not support you now. Also the things mentioned above. I've made some kind of bad experience once, when we made someone with round about 500 edits and admin here. Now he only comes once a year to not lose the tools. I don't think we need this again. Just my feeling. -Barras (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Addihockey10&oldid=8898407"